# US Rejects Talks w/ Cuba



## NCRadioMan (Feb 28, 2005)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/12/4/175805.shtml?s=lh

I guess they didn't care for Raul's "olive branch".


----------



## luckybandit (Jul 9, 2006)

closer to cuba than i am to disney world or is that vice versa!
shame


----------



## VoteKinky06 (Jan 7, 2006)

How can the State Department justify refusing to talk to Cuba until they become a democracy when one of our biggest trade partners is China?? I love America, but am disgusted by the level of arrogance in our government and the fact that we can't talk to any country that doesn't do things our way...


----------



## pepito (Apr 7, 2006)

VoteKinky06 said:


> How can the State Department justify refusing to talk to Cuba until they become a democracy when one of our biggest trade partners is China?? I love America, but am disgusted by the level of arrogance in our government and the fact that we can't talk to any country that doesn't do things our way...


Maybe its because US government doesn't see anything to be gained from it.

Get ready for a three page disscussion about this.


----------



## VoteKinky06 (Jan 7, 2006)

Maybe, but why wouldn't we want someone so close to our shores to be anything but an ally? If nothing else, we'd gain great cigars and a helluva vacation spot:w


----------



## [OT] Loki (May 24, 2006)

VoteKinky06 said:


> How can the State Department justify refusing to talk to Cuba until they become a democracy when one of our biggest trade partners is China?? I love America, but am disgusted by the level of arrogance in our government and the fact that we can't talk to any country that doesn't do things our way...


welcome to US foreign policy 101


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

With a change of leadership in both countries we might see some progress on this issue. Or maybe not. Until then, I think Bush would sooner talk to Ahmadinejad than to Castro.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

VoteKinky06 said:


> How can the State Department justify refusing to talk to Cuba until they become a democracy when one of our biggest trade partners is China?? I love America, but am disgusted by the level of arrogance in our government and the fact that we can't talk to any country that doesn't do things our way...


:tpd: :c

US wants democracy in every country; as long as they vote for the US's choice of candidate.


----------



## PadronMe (Apr 26, 2005)

Why is it Bush's fault. He is just upholding the same embargo that Kennedy called for and every other president since then has upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued the embargo. Maybe this is one issue that is bigger than the individual parties.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

mosesbotbol said:


> :tpd: :c
> 
> US wants democracy in every country; as long as they vote for the US's choice of candidate.


here we go again,


----------



## [OT] Loki (May 24, 2006)

PadronMe said:


> Why is it Bush's fault. He is just upholding the same embargo that Kennedy called for and every other president since then has upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued the embargo. Maybe this is one issue that is bigger than the individual parties.


It's not bush's fault, but someone needs to step up and open talks.


----------



## TU09 (Mar 26, 2006)

PadronMe said:


> Why is it Bush's fault. He is just upholding the same embargo that Kennedy called for and every other president since then has upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued the embargo. Maybe this is one issue that is bigger than the individual parties.


I believe that it is a bigger issue than the individual parties, it is the american political system as a whole as well as our foreign policy dogma. The current administration is just another in a long line of administrations to uphold the embargo but in all fairness, it has certainly been tightened recently showing a bit more conviction than some of the previous administrations. :2


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

PadronMe said:


> _Why is it Bush's fault_. He is just upholding the same embargo that Kennedy called for and every other president since then has upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued the embargo. Maybe this is one issue that is bigger than the individual parties.


because you will always have people who cannot, or will not, see the bigger picture. They are more interested in pursuing/promoting their own political ideas and agendas then they are in taking a logical look at both sides of the issue. I find it sad.


----------



## PadronMe (Apr 26, 2005)

Instead of replying to all three of you, I will say that you all make good points on the issue.


----------



## PadronMe (Apr 26, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> because you will always have people who cannot, or will not, see the bigger picture. They are more interested in pursuing/promoting their own political ideas and agendas then they are in taking a logical look at both sides of the issue. I find it sad.


You get an individual reply.:r

I think this can be said for a majority of polititians.


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

PadronMe said:


> You get an individual reply.:r
> 
> I think this can be said for a majority of polititians.


:tpd:


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

VoteKinky06 said:


> How can the State Department justify refusing to talk to Cuba until they become a democracy when one of our biggest trade partners is China?? I love America, but am disgusted by the level of arrogance in our government and the fact that we can't talk to any country that doesn't do things our way...


Amen. Perhaps if the Democrats can gain enough votes in the remaining Red States, or Republicans in the remaining Blue, to make Florida irrelevant, we can tell the Exiles to go hose themselves and the rest of the country can re-establish trade with Cuba. In the meantime, the Florida vote is too important for either party to risk upsetting a large single issue voting block.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

punch said:


> we can tell the Exiles to go hose themselves and the rest of the country can re-establish trade with Cuba.


I have been enjoying reading this and made a commitment to stay out of it but dude, that is f...ng offensive.

I just happen to be one of those "Exiles", living in Florida. Is the reference let us go hose ourselves so you can buy Cubans legally?

There are many of us "Exiles" that differ in opinion from other "Exiles" and painting with the same brush just plain sucks.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Blueface said:


> I have been enjoying reading this and made a commitment to stay out of it but dude, that is f...ng offensive.
> 
> I just happen to be one of those "Exiles", living in Florida. Is the reference let us go hose ourselves so you can buy Cubans legally?
> 
> There are many of us "Exiles" that differ in opinion from other "Exiles" and painting with the same brush just plain sucks.


Carlos please see post #13 in this thread. post #17 is exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## HarryCulo (Aug 18, 2006)

punch said:


> .....we can tell the Exiles to go hose themselves and the rest of the country can re-establish trade with Cuba......


:r :r Wow, that is deep.

Your brilliance is surpassed only by your ignorance.

:BS


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> because you will always have people who cannot, or will not, see the bigger picture. They are more interested in pursuing/promoting their own political ideas and agendas then they are in taking a logical look at both sides of the issue. I find it sad.


This has been a non-issue for previous presidents, and why should they rock the boat? There's human crisis going on all the time, some battles they go to like Kosovo, Somalia, and Iraq; some others they just leave status quo. Politics is a career and they might not want to jeopardize it, even if what they said is for the betterment of mankind.


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I have been enjoying reading this and made a commitment to stay out of it but dude, that is f...ng offensive.
> 
> I just happen to be one of those "Exiles", living in Florida. Is the reference let us go hose ourselves so you can buy Cubans legally?
> 
> There are many of us "Exiles" that differ in opinion from other "Exiles" and painting with the same brush just plain sucks.


The cigars have nothing to do with my opinion, the politics do. I happen to be one of those who believe that the embargo has done more to hurt the people of Cuba than the leadership. If the embargo against Cuba is "the right thing to do", then there is a long list of countries that we should cease trading with. Also, if the intent of the embargo against Cuba was to bring democracy, why did we not just engage in a 40 year embargo agaist Iraq rather than get a bunch of troops killed removing a cruel leader? It would seem that if removing Castro is important enough to cause the want and suffering of the entire nation of Cuba for 40 years, Cuba should have been invaded before Iraq. It is sure a heck of a lot closer. The problem that I have with the embargo is that it is a failure. I believe that normalizing relations with Cuba will do more to hasten the fall of the current powers than the current policy.

As to painting all of the Exiles with the same brush, that was not my intent (although it is easy to see how that could have been taken). I happen to know a few Cubans who feel the way that I do about this. As to those that do not, I don't know if they are the majority, or just a powerful and vocal minority. I also don't particularly blame them for how they feel about the matter. I do, however think that when a policy fails for as long as this policy has failed, it is time to change it and try something new. Those that insist upon supporting failure at the expense of the people they are supposedly trying to help need to be told to get hosed and get out of the way.

No, my opinion about the Cuba situation has nothing to do with cigars. It has to do with a hypocritical policy that does not value life, but rather places a higher value on some life than others. The people of Cuba mean nothing to the politicians of this government. Cuba has no oil, and few other resources that we cannot get somewhere else. And as for cigars, our politicians seem to have no problem getting Cuban cigars. Our embargo of Cuba is, in my opinion, nothing other than a show to pacify a particular special interest group. If we were serious about freeing Cuba, it would have been done shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, when an invasion or an assasination would not have carried the same risk as during the Cold War. And unlike the current fiasco in Iraq, I don't think we would have a shortage of Cuban volunteers to hit the beaches first. This time, perhaps, we should REALLY support them.


----------



## cfheater (Jan 14, 2006)

another wise decision by the idiotic Bush administrationbto continue this. We will trade freely with all other communist countries but for some reason Bush isn't man enough to fix this stupid decision that was made a very long time ago.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

cfheater said:


> another wise decision by the idiotic Bush administrationbto continue this. We will trade freely with all other communist countries but for some reason Bush isn't man enough to fix this stupid decision that was made a very long time ago.


what exactly does this add to the conversation, other than to inflame people who might support Bush??:2


----------



## PadronMe (Apr 26, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> what exactly does this add to the conversation, other than to inflame people who might support Bush??:2


Yes. We could discuss politics here but it only takes a few idiotic posts to inflame.


----------



## TU09 (Mar 26, 2006)

cfheater said:


> another wise decision by the idiotic Bush administrationbto continue this. We will trade freely with all other communist countries but for some reason Bush isn't man enough to fix this stupid decision that was made a very long time ago.


Not much of contribution to the discussion. No reason to try to degenerate what has been a largely thoughtful and informative exchange.


----------



## Hydrated (Aug 9, 2006)

Wow... I didn't realize that it was already time to have this discussion again! I'm all aquiver with anticipation!

I think that Carlos is going to make me an honorary "Exile"...


----------



## VoteKinky06 (Jan 7, 2006)

cfheater said:


> another wise decision by the idiotic Bush administrationbto continue this. We will trade freely with all other communist countries but for some reason Bush isn't man enough to fix this stupid decision that was made a very long time ago.


Whether one supports the Bush administration or not, it is impossible to pin this on Bush solely, as this lack of communication and cooperation has persevered through many Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. I don't think partisan politics have a place in this conversation at all...:2


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

HarryCulo said:


> :r :r Wow, that is deep.
> 
> Your brilliance is surpassed only by your ignorance.
> 
> :BS


ROFL!

Again another liberal rectal masterpiece! Shit..........Somebody frame this thread and hang it beside the Mona Lisa! :bn

ATL


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

punch said:


> The cigars have nothing to do with my opinion, the politics do. I happen to be one of those who believe that the embargo has done more to hurt the people of Cuba than the leadership. If the embargo against Cuba is "the right thing to do", then there is a long list of countries that we should cease trading with.


Agreed, can we start with France, maybe Canada after that? 



punch said:


> Also, if the intent of the embargo against Cuba was to bring democracy, why did we not just engage in a 40 year embargo agaist Iraq rather than get a bunch of troops killed removing a cruel leader?


We did, but your buddies at the UN messed it up with the Oil for Food program. Don't worry I am sure they congratulated each other by running red lights throughout Manhattan



punch said:


> It would seem that if removing Castro is important enough to cause the want and suffering of the entire nation of Cuba for 40 years, Cuba should have been invaded before Iraq. It is sure a heck of a lot closer. The problem that I have with the embargo is that it is a failure. I believe that normalizing relations with Cuba will do more to hasten the fall of the current powers than the current policy.


No actually Cuba's want and suffering is the product of 40+ years of Communist incompetence (For an example of incompetence look back at the Oil for Food program). Sorry! Big bad America and all it's $$$ didn't turn Cuba into a toilet......it was Socialism. The same thing that turned Russia, North Korea, and East Germany into a toilet. You are now free to line up for toilet paper!:bn



punch said:


> As to painting all of the Exiles with the same brush, that was not my intent (although it is easy to see how that could have been taken). I happen to know a few Cubans who feel the way that I do about this. As to those that do not, I don't know if they are the majority, or just a powerful and vocal minority. I also don't particularly blame them for how they feel about the matter. I do, however think that when a policy fails for as long as this policy has failed, it is time to change it and try something new. Those that insist upon supporting failure at the expense of the people they are supposedly trying to help need to be told to get hosed and get out of the way.


Well you did a bang up job of showing it with your previous post. I agree with your point about failed policies. I mean how much longer will we have to suffer with failed Socialist policies like Welfare and Social Security?



punch said:


> No, my opinion about the Cuba situation has nothing to do with cigars. It has to do with a hypocritical policy that does not value life, but rather places a higher value on some life than others. The people of Cuba mean nothing to the politicians of this government. Cuba has no oil, and few other resources that we cannot get somewhere else. And as for cigars, our politicians seem to have no problem getting Cuban cigars. Our embargo of Cuba is, in my opinion, nothing other than a show to pacify a particular special interest group. If we were serious about freeing Cuba, it would have been done shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, when an invasion or an assasination would not have carried the same risk as during the Cold War. And unlike the current fiasco in Iraq, I don't think we would have a shortage of Cuban volunteers to hit the beaches first. This time, perhaps, we should REALLY support them.


Which government Cuba or the U.S.? One government gives refuge to the people the other one oppresses them. Which one is it? Now the embargo is a failure,much as socialism is a failure. I believe both should be abandoned as soon as possible. Now are you advocating assasination? Because if you are I mean you will lose a lot of friends at the U.N. and they will no longer invite you to their cocktail parties (You know, the ones payed for by Oil for Food money). Now as far as an invasion goes, maybe we should try that with a Republican president since the last one with the other Party turned into an absolute Clusterf*ck!

Sincerely,

ATL


----------



## Trout (Oct 4, 2006)

Pro bush or anti-bush I don't think is the issue. It has more to do with a foreign policy that most of us just shake or heads and wonder WTF. 

I seems like we uphold the embargo for a long term grudge. Nationalization of private ownership, allowing soviets to place nukes on thier Island and point them at us. So I can understand the embargo, but it seems to have only made Castro out to be the little guy fighting the big bad enemy.

But, then we do business with China, a country with some human rights issues of its own. We do business with Japan... Pearl Harbor.

I just don't see consitency in US policy and I sometimes other countries don't either.:2


----------



## okierock (Feb 24, 2006)

ResIpsa said:


> because you will always have people who cannot, or will not, see the bigger picture. They are more interested in pursuing/promoting their own political ideas and agendas then they are in taking a logical look at both sides of the issue. I find it sad.


:r

you have just defined the modern politician

actually... it is sad


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

>>Well you did a bang up job of showing it with your previous post. I agree with your point about failed policies. I mean how much longer will we have to suffer with failed Socialist policies like Welfare and Social Security? <<

I was following you but got stuck on this point (above). I disagree a wee bit here with your reference to the above being failed policies. At the time they were enacted they were good for the majority of the people in the United States. There was this little economic blip on our national radar screen known as the Great Depression. The above policies were enacted to give americans a leg (or hand) up. They were not intended to last as long as they did, nor to become a permanent fixture in american society. My Mother had to use welfare when I was little; it helped a lot. I didn't realize it then but, I did later on. She hated using welfare but had to raise her family. It became something else though; much maligned and bastardized by politicians and their ilk. Socialist? maybe, but they were a tool to help fix an ailing economy in this country. The trouble was/is, our numbnut politicians and other social scientists couldn't get their heads out long enough to realize those policies had a shelf life long expired. 
And this is off the point as much as a lot of this discussion has become. Too bad, it was getting good.


----------



## HeavySmoke (Apr 9, 2006)

I think this is a positive sign and is a step in the right directions. Baby steps......


----------



## tecnorobo (Mar 29, 2005)

HeavySmoke said:


> I think this is a positive sign and is a step in the right directions. Baby steps......


And might I ask how it's positive?
Did you notice US rejected talks?


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

donp said:


> >>Well you did a bang up job of showing it with your previous post. I agree with your point about failed policies. I mean how much longer will we have to suffer with failed Socialist policies like Welfare and Social Security? <<
> 
> I was following you but got stuck on this point (above). I disagree a wee bit here with your reference to the above being failed policies. At the time they were enacted they were good for the majority of the people in the United States. There was this little economic blip on our national radar screen known as the Great Depression. The above policies were enacted to give americans a leg (or hand) up. They were not intended to last as long as they did, nor to become a permanent fixture in american society. My Mother had to use welfare when I was little; it helped a lot. I didn't realize it then but, I did later on. She hated using welfare but had to raise her family. It became something else though; much maligned and bastardized by politicians and their ilk. Socialist? maybe, but they were a tool to help fix an ailing economy in this country. The trouble was/is, our numbnut politicians and other social scientists couldn't get their heads out long enough to realize those policies had a shelf life long expired.
> And this is off the point as much as a lot of this discussion has become. Too bad, it was getting good.


But that's the point...Welfare was supposed to be a temporary "hand-up", a short term program, and now has become a way of life. How can you not see it as a failure...for every person who truly uses it as short term assistance, three people abuse it. JMHO.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

tecnorobo said:


> And might I ask how it's positive?
> Did you notice US rejected talks?


we can start talks with Cuba when you send me my Cabinetta :r


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> we can start talks with Cuba when you send me my Cabinetta :r


Cabinettas for everyone....Blake is buying!!! :r


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> But that's the point...Welfare was supposed to be a temporary "hand-up", a short term program, and now has become a way of life. How can you not see it as a failure...for every person who truly uses it as short term assistance, three people abuse it. JMHO.


The biggest failure of Social Security and Welfare is that they've been kept on life support for decades after their time.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> But that's the point...Welfare was supposed to be a temporary "hand-up", a short term program, and now has become a way of life. How can you not see it as a failure...for every person who truly uses it as short term assistance, three people abuse it. JMHO.


:tpd:


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> Cabinettas for everyone....Blake is buying!!! :r


Can I join in on this? Heck, I can even make my butt itch...


----------



## tecnorobo (Mar 29, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> Cabinettas for everyone....Blake is buying!!! :r


me? buy cabinettas for everyone? well goodness, what gave you a crazy idea like that? :hn :r


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> But that's the point...Welfare was supposed to be a temporary "hand-up", a short term program, and now has become a way of life. How can you not see it as a failure...for every person who truly uses it as short term assistance, three people abuse it. JMHO.


My point is, they didn't fail in their intended purpose, they did what they were supposed to do. Whether the program had socialist trappings didnt matter given the circumstances. As times changed the use of these programs (policies) didn't, therein lies the failure but, the failure isn't in the programs but with the people charged with their use. Fast forward 50 or 60 years and there is still need in our country, but the fixes (read policies) are outdated and ineffective. So politicians on both sides of the aisle call for welfare reform, and years later, they call for reform of reform. It's all BS and useless political rhetoric. Americans are the most flexible and creative people in the history of civilization, we have adapted and overcome throughout our history but, we seem to fall short where social policies are concerned. What would be wrong with throwing out a system or policy that doesn't fit the need anymore and adapt new policies which do fit the situation? 
And I am going way way off the original topic now....I'm done :hn


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

donp said:


> I was following you but got stuck on this point (above). I disagree a wee bit here with your reference to the above being failed policies. At the time they were enacted they were good for the majority of the people in the United States. There was this little economic blip on our national radar screen known as the Great Depression. The above policies were enacted to give americans a leg (or hand) up. They were not intended to last as long as they did, nor to become a permanent fixture in american society. My Mother had to use welfare when I was little; it helped a lot. I didn't realize it then but, I did later on. She hated using welfare but had to raise her family. It became something else though; much maligned and bastardized by politicians and their ilk. Socialist? maybe, but they were a tool to help fix an ailing economy in this country. The trouble was/is, our numbnut politicians and other social scientists couldn't get their heads out long enough to realize those policies had a shelf life long expired.
> And this is off the point as much as a lot of this discussion has become. Too bad, it was getting good.


Very well stated! Welfare and SS were good policies, and still are when they are used as a bridge to self sufficiency. When they are used as a way of life (and I believe the Democrats have to take a lot of the blame here), they are a failure. I have no problem with safety net programs to assist those that CANNOT fend for themselves. As to those that WILL NOT, it is best that I not continue. It would totally ruin ATLHARP's view of me as the bleeding heart liberal dancing in a pink tu-tu with my UN buddies


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

PadronMe said:


> Why is it Bush's fault. He is just upholding the same embargo that Kennedy called for and every other president since then has upheld. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued the embargo. Maybe this is one issue that is bigger than the individual parties.


I believe that you are correct. The issue IS bigger than party politics. But just what IS the REAL issue? I simply do not believe that it has anything to do with a US policy sympathetic to the Cuban people. Why did we pull the plug at the last minute at the Bay of Pigs, but not the Gulf of Tonkin? Would it not have made more sense in the early 1960's to stop Communism 90 miles south of our border than on the other side of the world? Our failure (or intentional decision not to) stop Cuban Communism nearly started WWIII just a little while later. The Cuban embargo has acomplished no visible goal. Is there an invisible one? Or was the intent to punish the Cuban people as well as their leader? Were the Cuban people as dissatisfied with Castro as our propaganda made them out to be? I am not insinuating anything here, but these issues have been of interest to me since my younger student years when I would discuss these things with Cuban friends of mine. I didn't get clear answers then, and I don't think things have gotten any clearer since.


----------



## rick l (Apr 4, 2006)

Two Things:
1) Castro asked Dwight Eisenhour and the American people for help in 1959. He was rejected outright. So he goes to #2 on the Super Power list and Russia agrees to give him aid. 

2)Between Castro and Che , they landed on Cuba with less than 100 men, for them to take over the country, which was backed and armed by the U.S. , they MUST have had the people of Cuba on their side. It was a POPULAR revolution.Things must have been pretty bad in Batista"s Cuba for the people to rise up like they did.
just my :2 Rick


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

donp said:


> My point is, they didn't fail in their intended purpose, they did what they were supposed to do. Whether the program had socialist trappings didnt matter given the circumstances. *As times changed the use of these programs (policies) didn't, therein lies the failure but, the failure isn't in the programs but with the people charged with their use.*


I don't disagree with most of what you say...my point, though, is that failure is failure...regardless of where the blame lies. :2


----------



## Hydrated (Aug 9, 2006)

punch said:


> ... Were the Cuban people as dissatisfied with Castro as our propaganda made them out to be?...


Our propaganda??

Sorry, but now I can't keep my mouth shut...

Maybe fear keeps Cuban citizens quiet?

These people live under a government where people disappear in the night, sometimes to never return. It always amuses me to see a naive American journalist ask a Cuban waitress or taxicab driver what they think of Fidel's latest policy or statement. Right! They're gonna tell you that Fidel Castro sucks ass so you can print it in the world media and embarass a bloodthirsty despot.

Some people amaze me with their inability to recognize evil when they see it, and their refusal to denounce evil when they finally do see it.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

punch said:


> Very well stated! Welfare and SS were good policies, and still are when they are used as a bridge to self sufficiency. When they are used as a way of life (and I believe the Democrats have to take a lot of the blame here), they are a failure. I have no problem with safety net programs to assist those that CANNOT fend for themselves. As to those that WILL NOT, it is best that I not continue. It would totally ruin ATLHARP's view of me as the bleeding heart liberal dancing in a pink tu-tu with my UN buddies


Nope,

Welfare and Social Security are failed policies because simply they did not fulfill what they were intended to be which is a *temporary* program in which Americans would use as a *temporary* leg up in a dire situtation as opposed to a life of government dependence. Ultimately, Socialist policies like welfare and social security are there to create need and dependence by not giving any incentive to those within it to release themselves from their assistance. Free money has a way of doing that.....

If they are for just "temporary assistance" why are they still in the federal government and not been handed over to the states themselves who can do the job probably far better and with far less waste (i.e. smaller beauracracies)? How about this? Why were these temporary programs expanded in the 60's and on top of that, why was social security turned into taxable income if it was a "temporary" program to be used in a time of crisis? Does FEMA charge a fee on the assistance they give out? Last I checked they presented no invoice to any during relief aid.

Both programs are a scam and unconstitutional period. They have no business being in the federal government in any way, shape, or form past a particular time of crisis.

ATL


----------



## Hydrated (Aug 9, 2006)

rick l said:


> 2)Between Castro and Che , they landed on Cuba with less than 100 men, for them to take over the country, which was backed and armed by the U.S. , they MUST have had the people of Cuba on their side. It was a POPULAR revolution.Things must have been pretty bad in Batista"s Cuba for the people to rise up like they did.


That's what makes Fidel and Che so evil. They abused and killed people who may have needed and trusted them. By the time the average Cuban realized what the deal was... it was too late to turn back.

Read this true story.


----------



## HarryCulo (Aug 18, 2006)

Batista was corrupt and dirty. Things in Cuba were bad, elections were fixed, and mob was moving in and getting in bed with Batista. People were desperate. Castro came in at the right time, and with good ideas....... in the beginning, and only to some extent. He was going to give Cuba back to the people. Once he got in power, everything changed. 


Nearly 50 years later, the people are still waiting. 


He will go down as the ruthless dictator he is...... hopefully very soon.


----------



## Trout (Oct 4, 2006)

HarryCulo said:


> Batista was corrupt and dirty. Things in Cuba were bad, elections were fixed, and mob was moving in and getting in bed with Batista. People were desperate. Castro came in at the right time, and with good ideas....... in the beginning, and only to some extent. He was going to give Cuba back to the people. Once he got in power, everything changed.
> 
> Nearly 50 years later, the people are still waiting.
> 
> He will go down as the ruthless dictator he is...... hopefully very soon.


:tpd:


----------



## M1903A1 (Jun 7, 2006)

rick l said:


> Two Things:
> 1) Castro asked Dwight Eisenhour and the American people for help in 1959. He was rejected outright. So he goes to #2 on the Super Power list and Russia agrees to give him aid.


Evidence recently unearthed in KGB files indicated that Castro had contacted the Soviets for support as early as 1954-55. (They didn't think he had a chance and blew him off.)



> 2)Between Castro and Che , they landed on Cuba with less than 100 men, for them to take over the country, which was backed and armed by the U.S. , they MUST have had the people of Cuba on their side. It was a POPULAR revolution.Things must have been pretty bad in Batista"s Cuba for the people to rise up like they did.
> just my :2 Rick


It also helped that the New York Times' man in Cuba had a penchant for supporting socialist strongmen and went out of his way to turn popular American sentiment (and, by extension, US policy) against Batista.

A very interesting perspective on popular support is in the book "Cigar Family" by the late Stanford Newman. He details one of his friends, an executive in the Cuban tobacco industry, sending $100K in Cuban pesos to Castro's forces in the belief that he would be their savior from the ongoing violence and the corruption of Batista. Apparently this sentiment (and support) was widespread among Havana businessmen. Needless to say, their support was not exactly repaid.


----------



## a2vr6 (Oct 28, 2006)

Not sure if everyone saw it but the Movie Lost City pretty much sum's up Castro and the "revolutionary" Che are all about.


----------



## TU09 (Mar 26, 2006)

rick l said:


> Two Things:
> 1) Castro asked Dwight Eisenhour and the American people for help in 1959. He was rejected outright. So he goes to #2 on the Super Power list and Russia agrees to give him aid.
> 
> 2)Between Castro and Che , they landed on Cuba with less than 100 men, for them to take over the country, which was backed and armed by the U.S. , they MUST have had the people of Cuba on their side. It was a POPULAR revolution.Things must have been pretty bad in Batista"s Cuba for the people to rise up like they did.
> just my :2 Rick


1) So did Ho Chi Minh (Truman) and we assisted him initially to fight the Japanese. If we didn't support the French, we _might _have turned Vietnam to a 'US supervised' form of socialism, included it in the Marshall Plan, and avoided the international embarassment that occured. I suspect this is even more true of cuba.

2) Absolutely. It was a people's revolution and it is hard to tell if Castro still has popular support between his oppression of free speech coupled with government propaganda and exile interest groups coupled with US propaganda. If the people truely support the government (which is impossible to tell) our approach should differ from that of the last 40 years.

This is a _very_ interesting thread and I really enjoy reading the diverse perspectives of those participating.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

M1903A1 said:


> Evidence recently unearthed in KGB files indicated that Castro had contacted the Soviets for support as early as 1954-55. (They didn't think he had a chance and blew him off.)


This is true. 
Castro was the one who initiated the contact with the Soviets. It was a bold move of self preservation on his part. As effective as that was; it also made sure that any future contact with the US and the Castro regime will be terse at best.



M1903A1 said:


> It also helped that the New York Times' man in Cuba had a penchant for supporting socialist strongmen and went out of his way to turn popular American sentiment (and, by extension, US policy) against Batista.


The NY Times has a long history of sucking up to Communist regimes. Walter Duranty in effect won a Pulitzer for white washing the Stalinist Regime in Russia. I don't think the NY Times has given back that Pulitzer either...........hmmmmmm.........:tg

ATL


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

HarryCulo said:


> Batista was corrupt and dirty. Things in Cuba were bad, elections were fixed, and mob was moving in and getting in bed with Batista. People were desperate. Castro came in at the right time, and with good ideas....... in the beginning, and only to some extent. He was going to give Cuba back to the people. Once he got in power, everything changed.
> 
> Nearly 50 years later, the people are still waiting.
> 
> He will go down as the ruthless dictator he is...... hopefully very soon.


Al, Bingo, as would be expected from a fellow Cuban.

Some folks just don't seem to understand we were misled.
We were sold a basket of goods at a time we wanted and needed change.
This man promised a Cuba for the people and we wanted Batista out.
Within months, his true Communist intentions revealed themselves and things changed for sure and then came the mass exodus.
As bad as Batista was, there were no mass exodus of population under him.
History will now show Batista was a saint compared to Fidel.


----------



## shadowbandit (Nov 28, 2005)

punch said:


> . And unlike the current fiasco in Iraq, I don't think we would have a shortage of Cuban volunteers to hit the beaches first. This time, perhaps, we should REALLY support them.


We tried this once before and it didn't go to well (where is that air support?).


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

Hydrated said:


> Our propaganda??
> 
> Sorry, but now I can't keep my mouth shut...
> 
> ...


Propaganda:

1) Methodical propagation of a particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests.

2) Material spread abroad by the advocates of a doctrine.

I stand by my use of the word. I am also in full agreement with your assessement of the media situation in Cuba. Since we have a relatively free press, and virtually complete freedom in the publishing of books and other written documents from our own and nearly any other country, enemy or otherwise, OUR propaganda is likely to contain far more truth than the propaganda of a totalitarian system such as Cuba or the Soviet Union. This is to be expected since the public, or rather those few members of the public with IQ's higher than room temperature and capable of reading more than comics and the sports page, have full freedom to compare the "official" party line with other documentation and determine, as well as comment upon, the accuracy of that party line. Obviously, the same cannot occur in a totalitarian system since those that tend to have the IQ's above room temperature tend to disasppear if they make that fact too well known. However, the accuracy of propaganda does not change the fact that it is, indeed, propaganda. The intent is to form public opinion and get that public opinion behind the particular party of interest. The data is not there to provide a fair and balanced view of the situation. And, indeed, there are some situations for which even a fair and balanced view would not at all be favorable to the object under discussion. I agree with those in this discussion who believe that when History does finally compile a fair and accurate view of the Cuban Revolution, it will not be kind to Castro. The few things that he did to improve the lot of the people could have been easily done without the offsetting brutality and repression which eventually led to the ultimate failure of his revolution.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

I guess as a continued gesture of good faith by the Cuban "revolucion", a Cuban dissident whose sole crime was disagreeing with Fidel's government, sentenced to 25 yrs in a prison not like any we have in the US, was given an early release today.

Now if they could only do the same with the rest that remain wrongfully locked up without having been properly tried, then go and find the ones that disappeared in the middle of the night and have yet to be ever seen again and then revive the ones executed without a trial, all because they disagreed with their form of government, then that would really impress me.

Can you imagine that if you lived in Cuba and were able to access this thread and post on it, the debate and information cited on this thread would have some locked up for 25 yrs or executed? What joy to live in the US!


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> I don't disagree with most of what you say...my point, though, is that failure is failure...regardless of where the blame lies. :2


The failure is due to the social programs allowed to remain in use by politicians who lacked creativity to legislate appropriately. The failure is theirs and that cannot be ignored. If you take a perfectly good tool and use it for something other than it's purpose it will fail. So, who is to blame? The tool or the person using the tool?


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

Blueface said:


> I guess as a continued gesture of good faith by the Cuban "revolucion", a Cuban dissident whose sole crime was disagreeing with Fidel's government, sentenced to 25 yrs in a prison not like any we have in the US, was given an early release today.
> 
> Now if they could only do the same with the rest that remain wrongfully locked up without having been properly tried, then go and find the ones that disappeared in the middle of the night and have yet to be ever seen again and then revive the ones executed without a trial, all because they disagreed with their form of government, then that would really impress me.
> 
> Can you imagine that if you lived in Cuba and were able to access this thread and post on it, the debate and information cited on this thread would have some locked up for 25 yrs or executed? What joy to live in the US!


It *is* a joy, but not without it's responsibilities. The responsibility to vote, to think, to be ever watchful so that our country doesn't wind up like others have throughout history. To have informed opinions; to obey the law, and to resist injustice. These things are our responsibility if we are going to enjoy the fruits of this country. Other countries don't have them, nor do they have our unique social structure. All this and we are still not perfect, and in my opinion its a good thing. It means we can still strive and work for something meaningful. We have a lot of extremists nowadays, moreso than ever before in our history. People who would have us all be one way, and think one way, and act one way. These people scare me, because in my opinion they have the greatest potential for evil. There is always room in history for an even more evil despot than the one before.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 7, 2005)

First of all, I think that this shows that our state department is inhabited by nothing but morons...what a waste of a chance...and ya can't blame it all on Bush...Kennedy set it in motion and every President since, both Republican and Democrat, has kept it in place...second, living in south Florida, I know, and am friends with quite a few Cuban exiles, and I think most of them feel the embargo is pure :BS at this point and accomplishes absolutely nothing...Castro, when he took power said (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), "first revolution, then democracy," however, he appears to have lied, as the Cuban people have been waiting 47 years for the second part of that to come true...third, as stated previously here, we are trading partners with communist nations, and countries run by dictators, so WTF is really going on here, as all this does is punish the Cuban people and nothing else? This isn't about them being communist and it's not about them being run by a dictator, and it's not really about human rights, or we would be embargoing China and a lot of other countries we trade with...so, WTF is this all really about? And fourth, Carlos, when do I get to be an honorary Cuban-exile?


----------



## HarryCulo (Aug 18, 2006)

Neuromancer said:


> First of all, I think that this shows that our state department is inhabited by nothing but morons...what a waste of a chance...and ya can't blame it all on Bush...Kennedy set it in motion and every President since, both Republican and Democrat, has kept it in place...second, living in south Florida, I know, and am friends with quite a few Cuban exiles, and I think most of them feel the embargo is pure :BS at this point and accomplishes absolutely nothing...Castro, when he took power said (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), "first revolution, then democracy," however, he appears to have lied, as the Cuban people have been waiting 47 years for the second part of that to come true...third, as stated previously here, we are trading partners with communist nations, and countries run by dictators, so WTF is really going on here, as all this does is punish the Cuban people and nothing else? This isn't about them being communist and it's not about them being run by a dictator, and it's not really about human rights, or we would be embargoing China and a lot of other countries we trade with...so, WTF is this all really about? *And fourth, Carlos, when do I get to be an honorary Cuban-exile? *


I think Carlos would agree, a box of Sublimes would qualify you 

along with scheduling your future haircuts around local herfs 

Good points here Mark.

o


----------



## drdice (Sep 11, 2006)

Great reading. I just returned from Cuba last week. We were on a tour of Havana for a day and i saw this enormous billboard with a picture of George W. Bush then "+" and a picture of whom i believed was Battista and then "=" and a picture of Adolph Hitler.

There were lots of signs with the word "Revolucion!". Lots of picture of Che and Fidel wielding guns. One particular sign caught my eye...it was a mural on a building with both Che and Fidel holding guns and firing them up in the air and something written in Spanish. I asked my tour-guide what the translation of the words were.....basically it read " We will never lower our guns to the imperialists to the North".

Fascinating place.


----------



## Demented (Nov 7, 2006)

This country needs an enema!


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

HarryCulo said:


> I think Carlos would agree, a box of Sublimes would qualify you
> 
> along with scheduling your future haircuts around local herfs
> Good points here Mark.
> ...


I'd settle for any size, not just Sublime but that haircut part is the killer.:r


----------



## Trout (Oct 4, 2006)

Neuromancer said:


> First of all, I think that this shows that our state department is inhabited by nothing but morons...what a waste of a chance...and ya can't blame it all on Bush...Kennedy set it in motion and every President since, both Republican and Democrat, has kept it in place...second, living in south Florida, I know, and am friends with quite a few Cuban exiles, and I think most of them feel the embargo is pure :BS at this point and accomplishes absolutely nothing...Castro, when he took power said (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), "first revolution, then democracy," however, he appears to have lied, as the Cuban people have been waiting 47 years for the second part of that to come true...third, as stated previously here, we are trading partners with communist nations, and countries run by dictators, so WTF is really going on here, as all this does is punish the Cuban people and nothing else? This isn't about them being communist and it's not about them being run by a dictator, and it's not really about human rights, or we would be embargoing China and a lot of other countries we trade with...so, WTF is this all really about? And fourth, Carlos, when do I get to be an honorary Cuban-exile?


:tpd:


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Demented said:


> This country needs an enema!


Nah! Maybe just a stiff drink, a night with a girl named Lola, and a damn good cigar! Save the enemas for the soy latte crowd that can't seem to deal with the beautiful aroma of cigar smoke! 

ATL


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

donp said:


> The failure is due to the social programs allowed to remain in use by politicians who lacked creativity to legislate appropriately. The failure is theirs and that cannot be ignored. If you take a perfectly good tool and use it for something other than it's purpose it will fail. So, who is to blame? The tool or the person using the tool?


Again, my point is: Whether the tool or the person is to blame, it's a failure. Period.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 7, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I'd settle for any size, not just Sublime but that haircut part is the killer.:r


Hey...that's not my fault...it was you guys that caused that...I kept asking for two weeks who was going to WPB and no one answered so I figured no one was going and made other plans...then the last day you all decide to go...it was your fault...yeah...that's the ticket...all your fault...


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Can you imagine that if you lived in Cuba and were able to access this thread and post on it, the debate and information cited on this thread would have some locked up for 25 yrs or executed? What joy to live in the US!


True. And as sad as this is, it is really sad when one considers that Cuba is only ONE of the many, many countries where this is true.


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> Again, my point is: Whether the tool or the person is to blame, it's a failure. Period.


No argument there but, that wasn't ATL's point, which was what I had responded to.

>> I mean how much longer will we have to suffer with failed Socialist policies like Welfare and Social Security? <<

>>I was following you but got stuck on this point (above). I disagree a wee bit here with your reference to the above being failed policies. At the time they were enacted they were good for the majority of the people in the United States. There was this little economic blip on our national radar screen known as the Great Depression. The above policies were enacted to give americans a leg (or hand) up. They were not intended to last as long as they did, nor to become a permanent fixture in american society<<

Failure is failure but of itself is only a description. If in answer to the first question: "how much longer will we have to suffer..." our representative politicians to "use a better tool" perhaps we wouldn't be having the debate. Labeling a thing as a failure doesn't remove the problem, which is my point. Yeah to some welfare and SS are failed programs, and w/o being more specific you give the impression that they always were, which is simply not true.


----------



## par (May 22, 2005)

I think it's fair to suggest that something can at one point in time be a success and later be a failure. To fairly characterize it as such one needs to point out wherein the failure lies or you can never repeat the success it once had.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

donp said:


> No argument there but, that wasn't ATL's point, which was what I had responded to.
> 
> >> I mean how much longer will we have to suffer with failed Socialist policies like Welfare and Social Security? <<
> 
> ...


When welfare and social security were started they were enacted to be temporary programs, not the way of life of entitlement that they have become. Somehow there is a sense that if you f*ck up in life that Uncle Sam and everybody needs to come to your aid. I believe if states want to have this crap then that's their business, but to insist that welfare is necessary at the federal level is fraught with error especially since 75% of the money never is seen by the welfare recipient. I think these types of programs are inefficient and ultimately unable to fulfill what they were typically made for being............temporary belief.

ATL


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

donp said:


> Failure is failure but of itself is only a description. If in answer to the first question: "how much longer will we have to suffer..." our representative politicians to "use a better tool" perhaps we wouldn't be having the debate. Labeling a thing as a failure doesn't remove the problem, which is my point. Yeah to some welfare and SS are failed programs, and w/o being more specific you give the impression that they always were, which is simply not true.


You are right, they weren't always a failure...just the last 35 years or so....Welfare is a joke, and the punch line is in our paychecks... JMHO.


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> You are right, they weren't always a failure...just the last 35 years or so....Welfare is a joke, and the punch line is in our paychecks... JMHO.


I agree with you here w/o hesitation. An example of how things can get so badly farkled when the people we elect to represent us do the opposite of what we want them to do. I get so p'oed when they treat us as if we are the great unwashed and that we don't know what is good for us.  I get even more p'oed when certain groups try and shove their agendas down my throat as if I have to want what they want, because they know whats right and good, and I don't. sigh But I ain't gonna fix that here or tonight 

Regards

Donp


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

ATLHARP said:


> When welfare and social security were started they were enacted to be temporary programs, not the way of life of entitlement that they have become. Somehow there is a sense that if you f*ck up in life that Uncle Sam and everybody needs to come to your aid. I believe if states want to have this crap then that's their business, but to insist that welfare is necessary at the federal level is fraught with error especially since 75% of the money never is seen by the welfare recipient. I think these types of programs are inefficient and ultimately unable to fulfill what they were typically made for being............temporary belief.
> 
> ATL


yeah, like the old anti poverty programs. IMO good idea, piss poor implementation, especially when they put them in the hands of the poverty pimps at the local levels; the same kids remained on the streets w/o a pot to piss in and their parents remained on the dole. Didn't fix anything. But, politicians got their votes and the newbie social scientists made their intellectual bones and enhanced their reputations which helped sell their next book. :tg


----------



## Full Bodied Bruce (Aug 9, 2006)

I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida. 
I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 7, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


I do sincerely hope you're joking...


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


Whoa! I hope yer joking too.


----------



## HarryCulo (Aug 18, 2006)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


Really??

Ok, that deserves a picture........ it's worth 1000 words :tg


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


I'm not sure that I would go that far at all. I can see why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed coming so close to the Revolution, the promise of "Cuban Freedom from Yankee interference" being still an achievable dream in the minds of many Cubans with fresh memories of the former US puppet dictator. However, after what should be the obvious failure of that dream after so many years, it is suprising that a covert invasion has not worked recently considering that the original "invasion" that started the Revolution began with fewer than a hundred poorly equipped revolutionaries in a leaky boat, most of whom were wiped out on the first day. If Castro is as bad as most say he is, one would think that a larger group of highly trained and motivated Exiles with full US backing should make a new Revolution a cake walk. Keep in mind that I am not saying that Castro is a Saint by any means. But perhaps it is part of the human failing that some people prefer a tyrant that is one of thier own over a puppet tyrant of someone else. Perhaps this is a parallel of what is currently happening in Iraq. Conventional wisdom would indicate that the people there would have been happy to be rid of Sadam and would have welcomed our forces. Some were and did. But it seems that Castro had an easier time in Cuba 40 some odd years ago than we have in Iraq. It is a hard read for those of us that do not have ties to the country. Would the Exiles who were part of such a hypothetical invasion be seen as liberators, or would they be seen as former Batista supporters and Mafioso coming to set things back as they were pre-Castro? It is not logical to my mind that they would be seen as such, but it is also not logical to my mind that 70% of the people would vote for Chavez given his open embracing of Leftist ideology and close ties to someone as supposedly evil as Castro. Or what about the recent victory of Ortega? Again, illogical to my way of thinking.

That is why I give at least some credibility to those that say that the Embargo against Cuba has possibly created a situation that causes the people not so much to like Castro, as to like us less. We may blame Castro and his policies for the bad situation in Cuba, and rightly so. But the Embargo has given him an excuse. It is said that a lie repeated often enough is percieved as the truth. The Cuban people have been fed this lie for a long time. Having no contact with the truth, why would they believe otherwise? The only other alternative is that what WE percieve as the truth is actually a lie. However, I am not prepared to accept that at this point either. I have enough faith in our way of life that I believe that a free exchange in ideas, trade and travel between the US and Cuba would go far to expose both the Cuban people AND the US people to the truth. I cannot imagine that this would be good for Castro and bad for the US. If Castro agreed to this free interchange, it would discredit him when his own people come here and see the truth, and our people go there to see the truth. On the other hand, if HE in turn disagreed to this exchange, it would discredit him in the eyes of his people because it would appear that he has something to hide. Under the current arrangement, WE are the ones that appear to have something to hide. Do we? If so, then what? If not, then why not end the embargo?


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

HarryCulo said:


> Really??
> 
> Ok, that deserves a picture........ it's worth 1000 words :tg


Priceless.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

donp said:


> I agree with you here w/o hesitation. An example of how things can get so badly farkled when the people we elect to represent us do the opposite of what we want them to do. I get so p'oed when they treat us as if we are the great unwashed and that we don't know what is good for us.  I get even more p'oed when certain groups try and shove their agendas down my throat as if I have to want what they want, because they know whats right and good, and I don't. sigh But I ain't gonna fix that here or tonight
> 
> Regards
> 
> Donp


Yup...I wish I knew what the fix was too Don...just know that the system as it stands isn't working for most.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


_Note to self:
Try very hard to remain professional and not fire back with offensive comments._

I would probably make the same statement others have made that I hope you are joking but even joking would be uncalled for, disrepectful and extemely offensive.

*Crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.*
Funny, I live in Florida. I am Cuban. I have yet to see what exactly it is that you must be such an expert on knowing. I travel through the Everglades regularly and have yet to see any Cubans veering off Alligator Alley to a secret training location.

*I wish they would all go back to Cuba and parctice what they preach.*
I am trying to act as intelligent as you apparently are but can't seem to understand specifically what this means. Cubans ran from Communism and want a Democratic and free homeland. Has Cuba become free and Democratic overnight and I missed it? Since I don't believe to date that has happened, how are we to return and practice what we preach? What you must be saying is that we should all get out and leave? Do you feel the same way about all immigrants or just Cubans? I think your words are quite clear relative to your position.

Now, to break my note to myself, get your head out of your a$$, don't be ignorant and welcome to 2007, as it is less than a month away.


----------



## DriftyGypsy (May 24, 2006)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


I have a question can we pick which of our government officials that get assassinated. Or is it just sort of hit and miss depending on the whim of each Cuban fanatic.  

Now, I do not live in Florida but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once and I believe they closed all the secret military bases in the Everglades. However I do know for a fact that many Cubans and Cuban Americans are receivig military training in such places as Parris Island, Ft Bragg and San Diego.


----------



## 68TriShield (May 15, 2006)

Bruce, i hope you realize how flat out stupid that statment is.What point are you trying to make here? What you said makes no sense at all...


----------



## rick l (Apr 4, 2006)

I have a tough time in these political threads, because I am a Canadian. I think our news coverage is much more broad based than yours and news from all over the world is shown on our newscasts.If your news story comes from the B.B.C it is quite different than from CNN.That out of the way , my take on this from a world of newscasts is : Your Monroe Doctrine basically says AMERICA for AMERICANS. We (the rest of the world ) wonder then ,WHY NOT :Cuba for the Cubans, Venezuala For the Venezualans, Iraq for the Iraqis etc. There seems to be a double standard here. Anyway just another Northern Rant. Rick


----------



## TU09 (Mar 26, 2006)

rick l said:


> I have a tough time in these political threads, because I am a Canadian. I think our news coverage is much more broad based than yours and news from all over the world is shown on our newscasts.If your news story comes from the B.B.C it is quite different than from CNN.That out of the way , my take on this from a world of newscasts is : Your Monroe Doctrine basically says AMERICA for AMERICANS. We (the rest of the world ) wonder then ,WHY NOT :Cuba for the Cubans, Venezuala For the Venezualans, Iraq for the Iraqis etc. There seems to be a double standard here. Anyway just another Northern Rant. Rick


Actually... it's more like _the Americas_ for Americans. That means principally latin america but you guys are included also. 

It was intended to protect our economic and security interests on the two continents from european powers. Never was it meant to guarantee the right to home rule for other nations in the region, in practice it supported US interference with the politics of our southerly neighbors.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


Joking or not, that's one of the most asinine comments I've ever seen on this board.


----------



## shadowbandit (Nov 28, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


ignorance is bliss...

A$$HOLE!!!!!!!


----------



## Full Bodied Bruce (Aug 9, 2006)

I"m well ready for 2007, suggest you and some of your coherts get away from 1959. I don't live in Florida, but I have been there and have seen the crazies running around in the swamps with guns.
Its well docemented and reported (with pictures) that this activity has been going on since the early 60's. Originally set up by the CIA these training camps have been running with local support for the last twenty years or so. 
These jerks have an inordinate influence on our foreign policy and some of that influence is predicated on fear.
I"ve said all I will on the subject and will be content to let the ignorant asshats among you rant on. Enjoy.:fu


----------



## RGD (May 10, 2006)

Drugs is a terrible thing - just say No!



Ron


----------



## DriftyGypsy (May 24, 2006)




----------



## NCRadioMan (Feb 28, 2005)

Locked and loaded!


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I"m well ready for 2007, suggest you and some of your coherts get away from 1959. I don't live in Florida, but I have been there and have seen the crazies running around in the swamps with guns.
> Its well docemented and reported (with pictures) that this activity has been going on since the early 60's. Originally set up by the CIA these training camps have been running with local support for the last twenty years or so.
> These jerks have an inordinate influence on our foreign policy and some of that influence is predicated on fear.
> I"ve said all I will on the subject and will be content to let the ignorant asshats among you rant on. Enjoy.:fu


Thanks for the info! can you post some of the pics, since it's been well documented and reported I assume you have them, so that I can know what to be on the lookout for next time I'm in Florida? Try to get pics of the CIA basecamps as well, you can never be too well prepared. :gn

by the way, I've got little tolerance for bigoted minds. Gave you a little present.


----------



## par (May 22, 2005)

This thread doesn't seem particular useful anymore.

anyone care to steer it back to the more informative posts? Ignoring inflammatory posts is a blissful thing!

I for one am a firm believer that as we saw in eastern europe in the 80's that once normalized exchange of culture, trade and ideas takes place people will be driving towards change. Isolation allows unification against a percieved enemy. The economic, cultural and trade isolation against cuba is just cementing the grips that the totalitarian government has on the cuban people. Uprooting that is easiest done by blanketing them in western values. I for one can't see how we can possibly blanket them in ideas of open communication, freedoms and values by isolating them. The 50 year old embargo hasn't been a huge success so far and if history is any indicator i can't see what will make it succesful by continuing to stay the current course.

my few cents...


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I"m well ready for 2007, suggest you and some of your coherts get away from 1959. I don't live in Florida, but I have been there and have seen the crazies running around in the swamps with guns.
> Its well docemented and reported (with pictures) that this activity has been going on since the early 60's. Originally set up by the CIA these training camps have been running with local support for the last twenty years or so.
> These jerks have an inordinate influence on our foreign policy and some of that influence is predicated on fear.
> I"ve said all I will on the subject and will be content to let the ignorant asshats among you rant on. Enjoy.:fu


Hey do they fly black helicopters too? Geez! I bet you have been this way since the ATF burned down your compound in Waco!:r

What a douche!

ATL


----------



## Neuromancer (Sep 7, 2005)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I"m well ready for 2007, suggest you and some of your coherts get away from 1959. I don't live in Florida, but I have been there and have seen the crazies running around in the swamps with guns.
> Its well docemented and reported (with pictures) that this activity has been going on since the early 60's. Originally set up by the CIA these training camps have been running with local support for the last twenty years or so.
> These jerks have an inordinate influence on our foreign policy and some of that influence is predicated on fear.
> I"ve said all I will on the subject and will be content to let the ignorant asshats among you rant on. Enjoy.:fu


----------



## Pablo (Oct 13, 1997)

Full Bodied Bruce said:


> I believe we would have normalized relations with Cuba many years ago if our government officials weren't afraid of being assassinated by those crazy Cuban fanatics running around playing war in the swamps of Florida.
> I wish they would all go back to Cuba and practice what they preach.


That's some scary stuff. Hit's close to home for us up here in the Great White North. Your probably also aware of those sneaky Swedes that hide in the north woods of Minnesota. We're...I mean they're... running around with lefse and lutefisk just waiting for a chance to overthrow our government and force our elected leaders to eat bland food. In fact it's common knowledge amongst our insiders that the "Swedish Chef" character from the Muppet Show was actually sending out secret messages about socialized healthcare.

I have it on good source that when he said "huurda veerda urnda yerdy daverdy" that actually was a message on increased taxation and had nothing to do with the correct way to baste turkey.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.


----------

